Posted on 10/22/2021 7:57:05 PM PDT by DoodleBob
Competent producers would have insisted that all instructions from the armorer be followed without exception.
Union sabotage has been suggested. It should not have made any difference if that did occur, other than to spread the blame around. I do not believe that was a factor anyway.
It looks like multiple failures of management, converging in a "perfect storm".
Well, I know if I am “horsing around” and shoot some mother in the gut, it will be OK because it was somebody else’s fault.
Minimum.
I’ll leave Peter Falk out of it.
Stupid Libtard with a gun does not hold up in court.
He is definitely personally liable civilly.
The number one rule regarding guns is that the person holding one is responsible to check if it’s loaded. Period. Actors are still humans and the rule applies to them. Can Alec tell the jury he checked? No. By his own immediate words he proved he did not.
Next, if you’re holding a gun and didn’t secure that it is unloaded, the most important firearm rule is to assume it’s loaded and to never point it at people you don’t intend to shoot.
Can Alec swear to that? Clearly he cannot.
Total gun safety negligence on him. He has to pay out.
I can’t speak to the criminal side because apparently NM has some very specific exemptions from gun death when it’s proven accidental. I don’t know what evidence we would have that it wasn’t accidental. But they did say that normally the humans would set up the shot and retreat to safety. Why did he pull the trigger when they were right there?
Isn’t it easiest to check such a gun for billets?? I mean can’t you just look at the chambers?
The "zeroth" rule in handling firearms is that on transfer from one individual to another responsible individual is that it be passed with the action open, and no projectile in the chamber, whilst the muzzle is aimed in a safe direction however manipulated. The possessor thus verifies that the chamber is empty, and the action open for examination, which relieves him/her of responsibility for its deadliness when passed. The receiver verifies the continuity of passing safely by verifying both factors immediately upon receipt and in that assumes the sole responsibility for deploying the firearm in a safe manner.
No assumption is made as to the safety of the process except by personal verification of the condition of the device. The possessor of the firearm is alone responsible for its deployment. If the firearm is to be used with a blank, it is he/she alone who is to verify that no projectile is involved.
If the firearm used is a muzzle-loader as pictured by algore in Post #3, and not cartridge-fired, though Baldwin's verification process is more complex, he alone bears the responsibility for the result. He apparently did not receive it unloaded amd empty, and load it himself. Not to do so is assuming criminal negligence, however lightly.
The rule in this matter is:
The blame rests entirely upon Baldwin, and should be placed there if he tries to shift it. He is megligent, and with a deadly weapon, criminally so if anyone is hurt with it while in his hands, IMHO.
The same for us all in the handling of a firearm. Its possessor bears all the accountability for its manipulation.
That picture has the caption “A vintage Colt Dragoon from the 1800s is seen. The fatal gun was a Colt, but the model and caliber are sill unclear.”
So no one seems to know anything about the gun other than it was a Colt. The DM just put up a random picture.
It has to have been a real gun. Prop guns don’t use bullets.
They used a picture of the wrong pistol. Word is the actual gun was a SAA, not the Dragoon pictured here.
Only off by 30 years or so.
Baldwin will claim he is to stupid to have the firearm in the first place.
Then it falls on the producer and director.
Sucks to be you Baldwin, you just murdered a young mother because of your arrogant ass.
Can you spare a dime for your life? I doubt it.
As a producer, I don’t see how he has no liability…
In terms of he’s actions regarding pulling the trigger, would need to show some sort of wanton disregard for human life in his actions, which I doubt you are going to be able to prove.
Civil liability almost certainly will have some, criminal? Will see
Exactly. Best post on the thread.
If it came to trial the prosecuting attorney should ask the jury which person the eventual shooter can completely trust to hand him a gun with no need to check for safety. His spouse? No. His priest? No. His boss? No. A soldier? No. A prop armory man? No.
There’s no person on the planet who removes the personal responsibility to secure a gun away from the bearer. Period.
Liability is acquired, however, if you were acting negligently when you caused the harm.
For example, imagine that you were driving down a neighborhood road with a speed limit of 25 miles per hour. You’re in a bit of a hurry, however, so you’re driving at a solid 35 miles per hour. There’s no reason for you to think, and you don’t think that you’re creating any exceptional risk by driving a bit over the speed limit—heck, plenty of the people in the neighborhood do so all the time. Suddenly, however, a child dashes out into the street, and that 10 miles per hour over the limit is what prevents you from stopping before your vehicle hits and kills the child.
Here you were not acting in a normal and non-negligent manner. We all have a generalized legal duty to not cause unjustified harm to others. Your intentional disregard of the stated speed limit violated that legal duty, even though you did not know you were creating an exceptional risk of death.
As for criminal liability...probably not:
Criminal liability requires recklessness.
Recklessness occurs when you not only violate a legal duty to not cause harm, but you explicitly know you are doing so, and you intentionally disregard that risk.
You know (as we all know, so it is “common knowledge” in legal terms) that driving while intoxicated creates a risk to others of death or serious bodily injury. When you become voluntarily intoxicated and operate a motor vehicle you are aware of the risk you are creating, and you are choosing to disregard that risk.
Should a death result, your recklessness makes that not an accident or even mere negligence, but a crime—involuntary manslaughter.
Somebody hands me a gun, I know what it is and what it can do.
I know how to clear any gun.
I will put it down if I am unfamiliar with it.
I sure as hell won’t point it at co-workers and pull the trigger.
Lock him up.
Hmm. Maybe, but yours is soonest with exactly the same content. So hat tip is to your response!
Cartridges have the potential for being a great safety improvement, eh?
I think it depends on his behavior in handling the weapon prior to the event and whether he was following any direction from the crew in when to wield, aim, and fire the weapon.
If he was treating it with care and following directions then it’s hard to blame him, I think.
If he was treating it cavalierly and pointing it at people and things on his own, I think he bears some responsibility.
I’m wondering about the propmaster’s (and other responsible figures in the crew, including the director’s) role in all this. If there are live weapons or potentially dangerous props on the set, were the cast and crew instructed in how to handle them properly? Did they have to sign documents assuming responsibility for their use? Were any waivers involved?
I think Baldwin is a skunk who is fully capable of reckless behavior resulting in a tragedy like this. But it needs to be proved in a court if he is to blame.
Fascinating info from filming procedures with weapons - white words on black background - near the current end of another thread now on this issue. Explaining the normal safety procedures. Insisting the cast and crew go through protocols themselves to know 💯 that the weapon is not loaded. Or to know if is. Blanks are considered loaded. Check it out.
I didn’t know he was the producer. Not sure how the producer figures in all this except for hiring the folks involved in the production. I imagine his production company will pay out the nose for this.
Just one muggle’s opinion!
It looks too like a single-action; so he would have had to manually pull back the hammer??
Hey Aric Barwin, President Trump never shot no mother in the gut with a gun and killed her.
What say you?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.